Bheem v.s Hari - Bradman DEBATE

[Guest HariSampath]

Quote In this case what will your response to me be ? my answer : No he wont .... simply because he was venturing into unknown territory i.e subcontinent. Here is your quote from above where you clearly say that venturing into subcontinent unknown territory would have been a very difficult proposition for first comers to perform heavily. This point has been rebutted and proved conclusively wrong by me . With facts and stats. and with various teams/players too, and repeatedly too and not just 1 inngs. So you accept you would have been wrong in this point ( if you had been discussingas we are now, in gthe time frame 1940s period) Ok, so I will take it as you having been defeated by facts on your first point.

[Rajiv]

Others, please read first post

[Guest HariSampath]

But we are not talking about just 100s ... we are talking about the big kahuna .... the Triple.

No No, we are talking about the reason you gave as Unknown condition. If players coming into unknown conditions can score huge 100s, and teams score huge 500, 600 totals, then your " unknown contitions theory" stands defeated. Now, if that was the ONLY reason you gave against Bradman scoring 300, that stands defeeated too. Simply because if these players were doing FAR better in India , playing for the FIRST time, scoring so heavily, we gotta expect Bradman too to perform FAR beyong his own levels of performance for first visit. I think I am talking logically here, and you have been proved wrong.

[Guest HariSampath]

not One single Test match IN India ranks in the High scoring games EVER never mind the 30's or 40s .....

You have said that not ONE sigle tst match has ever been high scoring EVER, and certainly not in that earlier era. But I have proved this to be wrong too, bu giving you stats of two 400 + innings in very first 2 tests by Eng in 1930s, two 600 + innings by Windies on their first tour in 1940s etc. So you admit you are wrong and have been shown as wrong ?

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Guest HariSampath]

I think its time to admit Bheem, cheerfully I hope that you are just a bullshitter and are no match for me in any educated cricket discussion. Period. Further, I don't think your quality of argument even merit me discussing with you, Thats like Bradman playing agarkar and goiving Agarkar the honor of being thrashed by the Don for a 100 in half an hour. You ned to expand your knowledge before you can even hope to hold my interest.. and you certtainly don't need exclusivity nor deserve it. :haha:

[Guest HariSampath]

Answer my question : these numbers that I have shown throw out your " first comers difficulty" and also " no high score in the 30s and 40s theory You have to admit you have eaten crow

[Guest HariSampath]

Not when there is a difference of more than 100 runs to get to the 300 mark ... Show me the numbers to support your claim Hari ... and no proving that someone scored 150+ is not equal to proof that 300 was/is a feasible score.

My point is always same. I will bulid my case point by point, and I will show you now how you are wrong about saying Bradman could not be expected to get a 300 if he were visiting first time, merely because of 1st visit. So you accept that Bradman may well score 3 huge hundreds like Weekes did ??

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Guest HariSampath]

What makes you think that I cannot write something as rasping and similar about you ? I guess I clearly mistook you to be a mature and sensible poster ... my bad .. I dont wish to pursue this any further ... Cheers and Thanks for the time bye now.

I know you cannot discuss in a mature faction and instead keep running away from real cricket issues I raise, while pretending to debate. Your thread of thought, for the record, has been as follow. 1. You dispute that Bradman was as great as eeryone says, and your first objection is he wouldn't have scored in India. 2. When it is pointed out that he well could have based on his earlier performances against India, in Aus, you change course now and say that he cannot get 300 in India . 3. You then say specifically and that too is only because of the fact he will be new to the subcontinent, meaning newcomers here will find it tough. 4. When I prove that too to be wrong with facts and figures, you say the gap between 200 and 300 is 100 runs. So I just asked you if you admit that newcomers do get and have got huge hundreds in a row, but no answer from you. 5. Finally you had said there were never any high scores in the 1930s 1940s, and when I proved that to be wrong too, you had no answeer. By this time, the mature debate was over, and so I just called a spade a spade :D Now you can run away after being defeated and if you choose to hide behind the "no mature debate"... then you are disgraced as well. Thank you

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Guest HariSampath]

Not a question of views, you don't even acknowlede facts like stats, you don't ack what you said earlier 5 posts back, you ignore holes in your argument whenever I bring it up, you run from one issue to another while indulging in ambiguous phrases like "subcontinental conditions" . " first timers never score".. " never high scores" " no 300s maybe 200s" and so forth. You think anyone including yourself is fooled ? Have you addressed any ONE point ? I have refuted with facts, figures and logic all your points. Even now, your basic root of the argument can be defeated in just 2-3 short sentences, all this elaboration for not because I couldn't just for others to see how you wear this "mask" of healthy debate ( till cornered by your own indefensible position) and then clutch at straws. On the Bradman Issue: Sir Donald Bradman was ceratinly not a hype and a very real batting legend bordering on the mythical Your very first objection to this issue namely that he was not the above because he would not have scored huge runs in India itself is absurd, because it was not even " he did not score runs in India", as he obviously never played in India. When all plausible records, projections etc were shown to you that broadly speaking we certainly could have expected him to score very very big, you revert to highly speculative theories based on fanciful non facts like "first timers", "conditions" etc, which may have had semblance of credibility if a large number of grfeat batsmen had never scored high first up in India. Even then that may not have appled to the Don, but still even tat theory being demolished by facts supplied of big team totals, big successive hundreds by first timers with far less impressive records than Bradman, you see where this is taking you and your hollow arguments , so now you pretend to hide behind the position" This is not a mature debate". I called it over, I mean if your first ball is hit outta the park, and you say its not a six, because the ball can't be found, I am afraid no umpire will buy that, and match will be called over. Period. Even now, I give you the opportunity, answer a simple question. From what we know of batsmen playing for the first time in India and teams playing first time in India is it not a very reasonable supposition to say that if Bradman had played a series here, he well would have scored a few big hundreds , maybe a possible 200 and a 100 at least ? plain yes or no, backed by facts and reason please.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Guest HariSampath]

First innings by Windies players in India. 600 + , including 4 centuries in same innings . prove it otherwise now

[Guest HariSampath]

second test in same series, again 600 + score.... no high scores in 1940s ?

[Guest HariSampath]

Third test first innings 366 4th test same series 580 Weekes scoring 3 huge hundreds no big scores for first timers in India , players/teams ? prove these stats wrong

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Guest HariSampath]

And also explain to me if Everton Weekes touring India and getting successive huge hundreds, what would have Bradman done.....with himself being far far superior to Weekes ? Answer that straight, particularly as Bradman had averaged 180 something against the same Indian bowling some months back in Aus

[Guest HariSampath]

Your question was about Triple hundreds in India. Sorry. Dont think your intentions are honest. kindly excuse me ... and find someone else that can indulge in a slanging match with you ... it shouldnt be hard to find such a poster. Cheers & Bye now.

No, my very first condition was I had said that Bradman may well get a few hundreds, and possibly a double or even a triple ton. But you haven't even come to it. Lets forget the 300 part, what about " a few hundreds and a possible 200 " ?? any answers ?

[Guest HariSampath]

Your response to my first Point ie. Playing IN India ------------- Ok, these are the 8 points that are the Issues ( Aussie 8 ball over of that era). If there are any points that I feel I have established beyond doubt by available fact, direct cricketing logic inference, and sound common sense to project certain situations, I will consider that point settled and move on, although you don't have to agree, but if you cannot refute the point, then obviously I would have won the point. Let others be umpires. Issue A playing IN India: It is a well known fact that Bradman never toured India and the question here is how we would have fared. The reasons why Bradman did not tour India was that Australia never played any test series between 1938 and 1947 due to the war. The first tour of any Aussie side to India was the Aussie services XI led by the victorian midget Lindsay Hasset in 1945/46 and Bradman could not come because he was not on the Australian services team, having been discharged from the war duty ( the Aus won its "test" in Chennai alone a game my dad used to speak about and Hasset got 100 I believe) So we are left with just seeing how Bradman fared in a later season against India in Australia, and project how he might have fared here. The stats for that test series in Aus are 5 tests 715 runs 201 highest Avg 178.75 Centuries 4 Fifties 1 The attack included the best Indian bowling of that era like Lala Amarnath and Vinoo Mankad What I mean is Bradman would have fared equally well in India, if not far better. I can also go on to say, he probably missed out on scoring another 4-5 hundreds, had he come on a test series here. Any arguments ? In fact if he had played in those missing 10 years, say some 20 tests against India, he would certainly have got a minimum of 10 centuries including maybe 2-3 double, triple tons ----------

See the above : I had just said that Bradman , had he played against India for 10 years he would have got 10 hundreds and possibly a double or triple too, over a period of qo years against India. And then we got to talking about what if he had come to India, and from there on, you have had no answers.....still. But you had admittted, after I proved through other teams/players records, that Bradman will well have scored huge IN INDIA, if not an immediate 300 in 1948, which is fine by me.